If you want solid axles, lockers, a V8, and decent options, and aren't phased by questionable reliably. I'll throw out another option as opposed to a Grenadier: Dodge Power Wagon
.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
.
I'd prefer the Rubicon 392. Or better yet, an old Land Cruiser with a V8 swap.If you want solid axles, lockers, a V8, and decent options, and aren't phased by questionable reliably. I'll throw out another option as opposed to a Grenadier: Dodge Power Wagon
LS-powered 80 series would be pretty amazing for sure
. I am sure the Rubicon 392 would be a ton of fun to drive, but IMO they are much less versatile rigs than a IFS Toyota. I've wheeled with my buddy's JK Rubicon and my GX is superior for every single driving/wheeling condition except rock-crawling, and has better ground clearance on 33s.
Apparently the throttle control and crawl speed controllability of the Rubicon 392 kinda sucks.
There is an INEOS dealer close to my house that must have 50 to 60 Grenadiers parked in their (front) lot for sale. Maybe more in the back. I am NOT exaggerating at all. I have seen ads where they give you additional incentives if you own a Defender, Jeep or whatever other off-roader and trade it in a new Grenadier.
I hate so much that Ineos set out with such a straightforward, understandable, reasonable and attainable goal, had hundreds of vehicles to drive and compare and determine the pros/cons......and failed so miserably
I was looking so forward to buying one
rant off
I was looking so forward to buying one
rant off
Sir (ugh) Jim Ratcliffe, OBE or whatever the fu*K he is allegedly set out to build a better Defender to get back an uncompromising true off roader.
First things first, the compromises started:
-Was going to be UK built; think they may have started with Ireland and wound up in Wales, then looked at Spain, and wound up in Hambach, France. This alone is a huge embarrassment for the fledgling marque though I have a good understanding of the economics of the decision.
-Gotta have reliable powertrains for the bush with great parts availability. So lemme guess they chose: Toyota, Iveco, GM, no they chose BMW! Two engine options, no manual transmission for the elegant and pure off roading machine, nope ZF transmissions and Direct Injected Turbo I6 petrol or diesel if not in the U.S.
-Design gets rid of cool parts of old Defender like Alpine Lites adds a million ways to attach crap for the overloading crowd. Forgive me as I think people are generally bolting too much crap to their roofs, doors, bumpers already; some need it, most do not. Lighter is better not only for power to weight ration, but also for wheeling in most circumstances. Interior design is a neat idea like an older aircraft though the ZF shifter really ruins everything along with no gauge cluster for the driver and a bunch of electronic crap that does not work as well as Land Rover Pivi Pro; why not go back to analog and just do CarPlay and Android Auto without and screen for vehicle operations.
-Result is an overbuilt touring wagon designed to carry all kinds of crap on the roof doors and hanging off the rear etc. Angles are good, running gear is very good, steering is great off road and sh*t on road. Pay top dollar for the old school look and some comfort without obligatory expensive vehicle options such as Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Centering (not just Lane Keep Assist), Rear Center Arm Rest, Ventilated Seats, 360-degree Camera, Trail Cameras.
Ratcliffe wanted to go old school and wound up somewhere in between. Not a lean and mean off roader like the 70-series, not a luxurious (relatively) G-Class or L663 Defender 110.
It is impressive the Grenadier came to fruition at all, however, it is anything but an uncompromising purpose built off roader though it shows they tried with the axles, suspension, steering. I think they could have and should have done better at the price point they hit. I will never be cool with the B58 engine choice. Petrol engine should have been a naturally aspirated, port injected V8 with iron block (think GM 6.0-liter), diesel could have been almost anything but a BMW I6 IMHO.
Rant complete.
First things first, the compromises started:
-Was going to be UK built; think they may have started with Ireland and wound up in Wales, then looked at Spain, and wound up in Hambach, France. This alone is a huge embarrassment for the fledgling marque though I have a good understanding of the economics of the decision.
-Gotta have reliable powertrains for the bush with great parts availability. So lemme guess they chose: Toyota, Iveco, GM, no they chose BMW! Two engine options, no manual transmission for the elegant and pure off roading machine, nope ZF transmissions and Direct Injected Turbo I6 petrol or diesel if not in the U.S.
-Design gets rid of cool parts of old Defender like Alpine Lites adds a million ways to attach crap for the overloading crowd. Forgive me as I think people are generally bolting too much crap to their roofs, doors, bumpers already; some need it, most do not. Lighter is better not only for power to weight ration, but also for wheeling in most circumstances. Interior design is a neat idea like an older aircraft though the ZF shifter really ruins everything along with no gauge cluster for the driver and a bunch of electronic crap that does not work as well as Land Rover Pivi Pro; why not go back to analog and just do CarPlay and Android Auto without and screen for vehicle operations.
-Result is an overbuilt touring wagon designed to carry all kinds of crap on the roof doors and hanging off the rear etc. Angles are good, running gear is very good, steering is great off road and sh*t on road. Pay top dollar for the old school look and some comfort without obligatory expensive vehicle options such as Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Centering (not just Lane Keep Assist), Rear Center Arm Rest, Ventilated Seats, 360-degree Camera, Trail Cameras.
Ratcliffe wanted to go old school and wound up somewhere in between. Not a lean and mean off roader like the 70-series, not a luxurious (relatively) G-Class or L663 Defender 110.
It is impressive the Grenadier came to fruition at all, however, it is anything but an uncompromising purpose built off roader though it shows they tried with the axles, suspension, steering. I think they could have and should have done better at the price point they hit. I will never be cool with the B58 engine choice. Petrol engine should have been a naturally aspirated, port injected V8 with iron block (think GM 6.0-liter), diesel could have been almost anything but a BMW I6 IMHO.
Rant complete.
In their defense, it's almost impossible to build a purpose-built "old school" off roader that will also meet US emissions, fuel economy, and crash standards. Those things are more or less mutually exclusive. Jeep kind of does it with their SFA rigs - but saddles folks with Chrysler build quality and crappy Pentastar engines (sorry, that V6 really is junk). Ford kind of does it as well with the Bronco, but you are left with reliability that is only a bit better than the Jeep. There probably is no diesel engine option that would meet US emissions standards without being hopelessly complex (if you've ever popped the hood on a modern Powerstroke, you'll know what I'm talking about).
BUT yes I do agree that the Grenadier could have easily had a GM or Ford V8 in it. However even those are direct injection and less reliable than they were 15 years ago (example: GM just had a massive recall on their 6.2L V8).
If you want a purpose-built off-roader in 2025, IMO you are better off having an older, modified rig and just dealing with working on and maintaining it.
BUT yes I do agree that the Grenadier could have easily had a GM or Ford V8 in it. However even those are direct injection and less reliable than they were 15 years ago (example: GM just had a massive recall on their 6.2L V8).
If you want a purpose-built off-roader in 2025, IMO you are better off having an older, modified rig and just dealing with working on and maintaining it.
GM 6.0-liter (Gen IV) is still an iron block with port injection; used almost exclusively now in Express, Savana, and fleet box trucks. There variants of the 6.0-liter with VVT, AFM, etc but it is widely renowned as a high duty cycle workhorse and is the block of choice for many hot rodders who use performance heads, cam, etc. Iron block with aluminum heads is the winning formula. It can be detuned like the L96 for long duty cycle at lower power or it can be tuned way up over 500-hp for performance and less longevity.
GM L96 6.0-liter V8
It was being used in the previous gen 3/4 and 1-ton Suburbans/Yukon XL's as well; great in armored vehicles.
I get how hard it must be to meet emissions targets. The answer might be simply to build 3/4-ton since the Grenadier is so overbuilt. If a manufacturer wants to build a 1/2-ton or smaller, simply pay an EV manufacturer like Rivian the carbon offset; buyers would pay for it if it really was the niche high durability, elegantly simple off roader it was meant to be.
Last edited:
I wasn't aware the 6.0 was still port injected! That's definitely encouraging as most other LT/LS variants seem to be directed injected now. I think the 7.3 Ford gasser is also port injected. I'm guessing they get somewhat of a pass on emissions since they are in high GVWR rigs.
There were UK regs that they were saddled with in regards to making it a 'three quarter ton' truck
and the BMW engine/trans was explained early on.....no other supplier agreed to officially supply parts for 10 years at a cost they could stomach
There are some weird decisions that Ratcliff made (turning radius, super short control arms, price point), but I hate the gov't for most of the compromises they had to make
and the BMW engine/trans was explained early on.....no other supplier agreed to officially supply parts for 10 years at a cost they could stomach
There are some weird decisions that Ratcliff made (turning radius, super short control arms, price point), but I hate the gov't for most of the compromises they had to make
iirc BMW is the last privately owned manufacturer of cars in any meaningful sense of volume sold. That would likely explain their willingness to provide parts/drivetrain to an upstart. I laud both of them for this and I too join you in the disdain of the hamstringing nature gov decrees impose on any sort of innovation.
Of all the problems the Grenadier has, it's drivetrain isn't one I'd be worried about at all. The B58 is one of the best engines being used in cars today, and the ZF 8 speed is a very good transmission. If you're concerned about the back of the valves on a B58 getting shmoo'd up to the point it needs cleaning, don't run crappy ethanol fuel and you won't have issues.
Also, I'd 10 to 1 rather wrench on a B58 than an LS engine. It doesn't get much easier to work on than an inline six. With BMWs it's the turbo V8s you want to stay away from, they are a nightmare of complexity.
Also, I'd 10 to 1 rather wrench on a B58 than an LS engine. It doesn't get much easier to work on than an inline six. With BMWs it's the turbo V8s you want to stay away from, they are a nightmare of complexity.
Crappy ethanol fuel is mandated for 87 and common in 89 octane in my state (handout to the corn lobby). The only way to semi-reliably avoid it is by ponying up for 91/93 octane, which is usually ethanol free, but carries a $0.50 cent/gallon surcharge. I do run the 91/93 from a local ethanol-free station in my small engines, but wouldn't want to have to run it in large SUV with a 15 mpg highway/city rating like the Grenadier.
Regardless of how good the B58 is, I can't imagine the Grenadier being fun to drive at a 5,900-lb curb weight with only 282 hp/332 ft/lbs. Same power as my GX470 (stock) with 1,000-lbs more dead weight. I am confident that it would have gotten the same or better fuel economy with a LS/LT V8, or even a drop-in Ford 7.3 Godzilla V8, and been way more pleasurable to drive. Both the GM 6.6 LT V8 and Ford 7.3 V8 are available as off-the-shelf crate engines as well. I get those engines probably make zero sense in Africa, Australia, or Europe, but they would make sense here.
As long as you have a PCV system, you're going to get crap on the intake valves.
The B58 engine has been in service for nearly a decade at this point. If this valve issue was half the problem people portray it as, the 5+ year old cars and trucks that have it would be dropping valves left and right.
Instead, the only people talking about it are people trying to sell you something, and people who have never owned a car that has one. Your average 2016-2018 340 or 440 has never had the back of the valves cleaned. Go drive one with 100k miles on it, see for yourself. I'm not saying it's entirely a made up issue just...mostly made up.
Instead, the only people talking about it are people trying to sell you something, and people who have never owned a car that has one. Your average 2016-2018 340 or 440 has never had the back of the valves cleaned. Go drive one with 100k miles on it, see for yourself. I'm not saying it's entirely a made up issue just...mostly made up.
Carbon build up is not going to cause a dropped valve. You'll make less power and be less efficient because of reduced airflow through the head. It is generally going to be unnoticed as it happens over time.
IMHO, carbon buildup in DI cars is only a small drawback. If you run some injector cleaner into a vacuum port in the intake every 20k miles (10 minute job), or do a walnut blasting every 80k or so, it's fine.
If I were designing an engine for myself, I would go DI only, as the small amount of maintenance isn't worth the added complexity and cost of also have port injection on top of DI. I would also choose I6 for this type of vehicle over any other, even V8.
IMHO, carbon buildup in DI cars is only a small drawback. If you run some injector cleaner into a vacuum port in the intake every 20k miles (10 minute job), or do a walnut blasting every 80k or so, it's fine.
If I were designing an engine for myself, I would go DI only, as the small amount of maintenance isn't worth the added complexity and cost of also have port injection on top of DI. I would also choose I6 for this type of vehicle over any other, even V8.
b58 should be able to be tuned up to higher levels as it is rated higher in other platforms ie. the supra
auto shift knob is terrible but replaceable with an acceptable one (youtube videos on it)
it needs a gauge cluster and better computing power in the head unit for sure
steering is a miss....
But i like it
However there are better options, but you will spend more getting them to the point the grenadier is already at stock, but its not a toyota so theres that
good watch here
auto shift knob is terrible but replaceable with an acceptable one (youtube videos on it)
it needs a gauge cluster and better computing power in the head unit for sure
steering is a miss....
But i like it
However there are better options, but you will spend more getting them to the point the grenadier is already at stock, but its not a toyota so theres that
good watch here
and...if you are watching in the USA...the entire 'new' 70 series comparisons are moot cause we don't get the new-ish 70 series
I used Seafoam on my previous DI Mazda at about 30K, and it made a huge difference (and a ton of smoke). The only DI vehicle we have now is the Highlander, but it also has port injection. While you and I may use injector cleaners on our DI vehicles, I'm betting 90% of DI vehicle owners never clean their valves. IMO, DI is another compromise system born out of CAFE and emissions requirements - just like 0W20/0W16 oils and auto stop/start buttons - and is not worth the extra cost/complexity for small MPG gains. But, I do agree that it DI is not a deal killer and I'll probably own multiple more DI vehicles in the future.
